Search for: "People v. Martinez (2000)"
Results 1 - 20
of 56
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Nov 2023, 10:25 am
[Side note: The other three surnames on the top-10 list in the US are Garcia, Rodriguez, and Martinez, which few people would mistakenly associate with our new man in Washington.] [read post]
1 Jul 2023, 8:10 am
Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. [read post]
25 Jun 2023, 10:54 am
NAACP v. [read post]
3 May 2023, 6:00 am
Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2000). [read post]
1 Nov 2021, 11:14 am
Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 659 (2000); Hurley v. [read post]
9 Jul 2021, 5:01 am
Janus didn't discuss Turner or PruneYard, and mentioned Rumsfeld only for the narrow proposition that "government may not 'impose penalties or withhold benefits based on membership in a disfavored group' where doing so 'ma[kes] group membership less attractive.'"[134] And the compelled contribution cases, of which Janus is the most recent, have drawn a line between compelling people to fund the views expressed by a particular private speaker (such as the… [read post]
7 Jun 2021, 8:16 pm
& Loan Assoc. v. [read post]
1 Mar 2021, 6:18 am
In Martinez v. [read post]
19 Jan 2021, 12:14 pm
In United States v. [read post]
18 Aug 2020, 9:08 am
Five to eight people were walking away from the area in various directions in a field between buildings and other people were standing closer to the buildings. [read post]
2 Apr 2020, 8:10 am
See U.S. v. [read post]
16 Nov 2018, 6:45 am
Russell v. [read post]
23 Mar 2018, 1:56 pm
(See Martinez v. [read post]
31 May 2017, 8:14 am
People v. [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 11:16 am
Southworth (2000) reaffirms Rosenberger on this score. [read post]
5 Dec 2016, 6:50 am
Some people, sure they need it. [read post]
9 Sep 2016, 12:51 pm
Martinez testified that the MVD tracking process reflects that this likelihood of no insurance is ninety percent or greater.State v. [read post]
27 Jun 2016, 8:31 am
Southworth (2000); Christian Legal Society v. [read post]
6 Apr 2016, 12:06 pm
Indeed, that is why all witnesses—lay or expert—are called: to get what they know about the case that other people do not. [read post]